You can throw grenades at Americans, but you can't take tinkling on yourself?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
As for the idiotic try him or let him go sentiment the Pentagon has a right and a duty to keep enemy belligerants for the duration of the conflict in order to make sure that they will not return to the conflict.

That depends on the status of the person held, i.e. someone that is not a POW has to be held for other reasons, which require judicial proof.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Que? Can you point me out the law who's letter or even spirit that says we lack the right to hold enemy belligerents for the duration of the conflict?

The 6th Amendment. The spirit of the Amendment indicates that we should try these people being held on our terrority (come on, no one really thinks Cuba owns Gitmo, do they?)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think there is at least a question about whether the treatment at Gitmo is as severe. Perhaps they were just smart enough not to carry around cameras. Frankly, if the Abu Ghraib people didn't have cameras, I figure you'd be saying the same thing about them.

So you are going to assume they are guilty until they prove their innocence. How very fair of you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

With this administrations' not giving a crap about anything international, yeah I think I will assume that. Fair, nothing... where there is smoke, there is fire. If that's unfair, I don't care.

If those pictures hadn't been taken, you'd probably still be saying the people at Abu Ghraib are innocent because of no evidence except Red Cross reports.

With Saddam's saying he had no WMDs, I didn't see you running out there saying WAIT, he's not been judged guilty yet!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sikander
It's difficult to assess a threat and a lot simpler to look at actual attacks. Note that there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11 (which was planned under Clinton and set in motion under Bush). No embassy bombings like happened in Africa under Clinton, no U.S.S. Cole. It is difficult to assess how much we have lost to Islamist terrorist attacks in Iraq vs how much to an insurgency. I'd say that it's too early to make the call.

You are being very disingenuous. to say there have been no Al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11 is fair enough but if you want to talk about Al Qaeda attacks over seas (i.e. the Cole, Khobar towers, the embassies) then I can point to a dozen Al Qaeda attacks which have killed thousands of people. Let’s stick to comparing apples to apples.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
With this administrations' not giving a crap about anything international, yeah I think I will assume that. Fair, nothing... where there is smoke, there is fire. If that's unfair, I don't care.

If those pictures hadn't been taken, you'd probably still be saying the people at Abu Ghraib are innocent because of no evidence except Red Cross reports.

With Saddam's saying he had no WMDs, I didn't see you running out there saying WAIT, he's not been judged guilty yet!

The Red Cross reports have been whining about them being kept in chains, being blind folded, only being allowed outside for 30 minutes per day if they behave, and other such things. Not exactly Abu Gharrab is it?

There has been a tremendous effort to hunt down people guilty of things like Abu Gharrab including interviewing people who had only spent small amounts of time there. A friend of mine in Psyops spent a total of 3 x 30 minutes at Abu Gharrab to link up with people he was supposed to meet then drive some where else and he STILL had military investigators show up at his house in LA. Of course he did nothing but that English biatch was trying to blame everyone under the sun for her crimes.

You may feel fine about accusing everyone in uniform but I don't. If there is evidence then let them put it forward but you don't jeopardize national security just because you don't care about truth or fairness.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
With Saddam's saying he had no WMDs, I didn't see you running out there saying WAIT, he's not been judged guilty yet!

Saddam killed millions of people and started two foreign wars. I put that in a different catagory to how the US. The question is why don't you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Red Cross reports have been whining about them being kept in chains, being blind folded, only being allowed outside for 30 minutes per day if they behave, and other such things. Not exactly Abu Gharrab is it?

Some of the stuff they say comes very close. The question is, of course, how much do they not know, since they aren't allowed full access.

I mean, it's kind of interesting that the Administration was even against the prisoners at Gitmo have a habeus hearing to try to prove that they weren't Al Queda in the first place! Why? What were they trying to hide? Were the people unfairly jailed going to speak?

Saddam killed millions of people and started two foreign wars. I put that in a different catagory to how the US. The question is why don't you?

How does killing millions lead to him creating WMD during the mid 90s? Not like if he used them no one would find out. But there was no evidence he was making them. Yet... no presumption of innocence for him. Before the 1991 Gulf War when was Saddam lying to us?

As for the US... we don't have the best history either. And Vietnam and Korea shows we are willing to do some distasteful things.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
It's difficult to assess a threat and a lot simpler to look at actual attacks. Note that there hasn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11 (which was planned under Clinton and set in motion under Bush). No embassy bombings like happened in Africa under Clinton, no U.S.S. Cole. It is difficult to assess how much we have lost to Islamist terrorist attacks in Iraq vs how much to an insurgency. I'd say that it's too early to make the call.

Seeing that terrorist attacks are designed to effect political changes, it appears that they are winning.